Asking for Proof Undermines Atheism

The Christian Apologist/Pastor Jeff Durbin, in the video below, does an excellent job of showing an atheist that a request for proof, actually undermines atheism. It’s a point which we (Christians) must be aware of when we are confronted with the challenge to prove Christianity to those we evangelize. Especially those who deny the existence of God.

According to consistent atheism, reality is, when you get right down to it, just… stardust. In other words, the universe is only stardust randomly bumping into stardust. Within a consistent, atheistic paradigm, there is no uniformity, it’s an illusion.

Why do I say this?

Because, honest atheism does not permit for the existence of any definitive objectivity, nor any absolute standards of any kind. In other words, in such a paradigm, there are no fixed or true points of reference. Everything is governed by chaos. There is no grounding with which to rest any postulate. Such a paradigm forever demonstrates that the future could never be like the past, therefore nothing could ever be known, nor less proven. As Jeff aptly puts it to the atheist in the video:

“You believe that you are just cosmic stardust moving around in a time and chance universe. You can’t believe that tomorrow will be like today.”

In asking for proof, however, the atheist ironically goes against their paradigm, and assumes uniformity of nature (that the future is like the past).

So, why does proof require the uniformity of nature?

Because, without the uniformity of nature, proof would not be possible. In other words, the existence of proof depends upon continuity. It rests on the basis that there is a consistent, immutable standard which verifies the request to show that something is true. If everything was random, as consistent atheism asserts, then proof actually doesn’t exist. Yet… the atheist thinks that proof is possible!

So, why would the atheist, who according to their worldview is really just a bag of stardust (that’s another blog), make a request for proof, which according to their worldview doesn’t actually exist?

Because, the atheist is an image bearer of God… and they can’t escape it (regardless of how sophisticated their denial may be). They actually act like a Christian when they make a request for proof. They act like a Christian because, as an image bearer of God, they correctly perceive that the reality that they exist in, is uniform. Therefore, they ask for evidence. Yet… their assumption actually presupposes what they deny. It’s quite ironic.

In a recent podcast, the Christian Apologist/Radio Host, Greg Koukl makes the same point Jeff Durbin does in the video: The atheist cannot escape being an image bearer of God.

While talking to a caller about the atheist’s inconsistency regarding their denial of absolute morality, yet at the same time defending what they believe they ought to have, and also addressing the strategies that they use to do so (rights, language manipulation etc), Greg exposes the folly of such an attempt and critiques them:

“We are made in the image of God, therefore, we cannot escape moral notions. They are built into us. The atheist can’t not talk as if morality is not objective. But, the atheist is desperately broken. And so, broken in rebellion, they want to defend their own point of view. They want what they want.

So, they use all kinds of language to sanitize their own view: rights, language, and things like that. Because, it gets them what they want (and it is consistent with an accurate worldview: that there are rights in the world.) They are just leveraging this moral claim in an elicit way, for rights which they don’t genuinely have. Because, they want them. Of course, however, they are stuck. Because, if there are rights, then there are objective morals. But, there are some things that they are doing that are wrong. But, if there are objective morals, which is the way they want to talk sometimes, then they can’t be wrong. But, then they can’t claim rights.

What they don’t want to be is consistent. They want what they want.

These are fallen human beings who are arguing for what they want. Mygoal in that situation is to press the inconsistency, and help them to see:

Look, ‘you’ can’t have it both ways. If ‘you’ are going to be evenhanded, if ‘you’ are going to be smart, if ‘you’ are going to be intellectually honest, then ‘you’ have got to play by the same rules. If there is no objective morality, fine. Ok, I’ll go along with that for the moment, for the sake of discussion. But, ‘you’ can’t make a rights claim then, and to say, “we ought to treat homosexuals a certain way.” Because, in this worldview, that language is meaningless based on what ‘you’ just told me. When‘you’ say, “we ought,” what the heck does that mean? That we have to follow our evolution? Who cares what evolution we follow? Where did ‘you’ get the idea that we have to obey our evolution for goodness sake?

But that’s the only thing that’s left for them.”

Both Jeff and Greg, each press atheism regarding its inconsistency. By doing so, the atheist is then forced to deal with their suppression of truth. They must face what they are trying so hard to avoid; the obviousness of God’s existence, the obviousness of ignoring their violation of His purpose, and the inconsistency of their position.

Now, getting back to the atheist’s request of proof. Let’s review:

By demanding proof, the atheist undermines their paradigm. Remember, in order to prove anything to the atheist, there must exist some degree of uniformity with which to ground said proof. However, in the atheist’s paradigm, uniformity does not exist. Yet, the atheist demands it.